|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 772
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
CR
Attachments
cr smoking.jpg [ 38.24 KiB | Viewed 287 times ]
_________________
Praveen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 1089
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
(A)
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
E.
We need to explain 1, significant decline in smoking, and 2, no decline in people killed in home fires.
only E can explain decline in smoking due to the increase in population densities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2322
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
157
[0], given: 0
|
(B)
Fact:
Smoking in bed is a main cause of home fire.
The discrepency:
Less people smoke now.
Death caused by home fire has not decreased
(A)
Smoking in bed home fires do not cause many deaths any ways, so less smoking will not have much impact on death of home fires
(B)
Smoking in bed fire always happens after the smoker sleeps. This means death is very likely in smoking in bed fires. And less smokers should mean less death caused by smoking in bed fires. Can't explain the discrepensy.
(C)
Smoking in bed fires are caused by heavy smokers. The people who quit are lighter smokers. Less smokers does not mean less heavy smokers, thus does not mean less smoking in bed fires, thus does not mean less deaths caused by the SIB fires.
(D)
More deaths are caused by another type of home fires, and that's why the total deaths has not declined even if the SIB fire deaths are less.
(E)
Home density means more deaths in each home fire. So death has not declined even if the number of home fires has declined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 772
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
any more tries?
_________________
Praveen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 232
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
my first choice is C. C talks about heavy smokers and non-heavy smoker. Yet that does not explain the differential issue on decline in smoking and lack of decline in fire death.
my second choice is A for a while. Yet the choice basically tell us that fire and smoaking in bed has no correlation, which will help explain the disrecpency on the passage. This is a nice trap.
Any more opinion out there.
This is a very good passage. Where can I get something like this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
According to me it is B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Sorry, didn't see the key word EXCEPT, let me try again.
Fact: smoking in bed is the main cause of home fires.
discrepency: 1 decline in cigarette smoking 2, no decline in the number of people killed in home fires.
So, the reason which cannot explain that there is no decline in the number of people killed in home fires is the right answer. In other words, other choices must be able to explain why there is no decline .
(B) it said home fires are hard to prevent. OK
(C) it said it is so hard to abstain from smoking that home fires happen easily
OK
(D) it said home fire cases is increasing. OK.
(E)home fires cause more death. OK.
(A) there is no need to divide home fire type. And it said home fires caused by smoking cause little damage, which couldn't support the descrepency.
So, I choose A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 772
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
OA is B
_________________
Praveen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 392
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Well I picked up A. but I am kind of now oscillating between A/B. Somehow A makes more sense to me. Praveen can you please tell us the source of the question will highly appreciate it.
Thanks
Saurabh Malpani
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 392
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Well I picked up A. but I am kind of now oscillating between A/B. Somehow A makes more sense to me. Praveen can you please tell us the source of the question will highly appreciate it.
But I would like to appreciate the quality of the question. Good ..kindly keep posting these kind of questions.
Thanks
Saurabh Malpani
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
So weird ,
HongHu, could your explain it more explicitly?
Thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 772
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
saurabhmalpani
This is from LSAT
_________________
Praveen
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2322
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
157
[0], given: 0
|
The rational is this: Less smokers should lead to less SIB fires, thus lead to less home fires, thus lead to less death in home fires. However this is not happening, why? Basically, it wants you to pick the one that cannot help answer this question. If an answer can break one link in this chain, then it is NOT our answer.
(A) says that SIB fires do not cause death, so less smokers has no impact on deaths in home fires.
(C) says that less smokers does not lead to less SIB fires because SIB fires are caused by heavy smokers who do not quit.
(D) says less SIB fires does not mean less home fires, since other types of home fires have increased
(E) says less home fires does not mean less death in home fires, since each fire now have more deaths because of home density
Only (B) does not help, since it says SIB fires likely cause death, therefore the chain should work, and so cannot explain the discrepensy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 392
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
WOW good question! and Thanks for exp. Appreciate your help and explanation. Indeed a good question.
Nice nice. Thanks to Praveen and thanks to HongHu. Wonderfull. Awesome.
Have all the words of praise for you HongHu.
Thanks
Saurabh Malpani
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Thanks, HongHu
way to go!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
